G.R. No. 272844, February 24, 2025
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION, CAGUIOA, J.

FACTS

The case involves the crime of bigamy. Edwin Bonbon y Tia (petitioner) contracted three marriages: with Gemma Cunada in 1988; with Rizalina Marcos in 1994; and with Elizabeth Brua in 1999. In 2021, 22 years after his third marriage, he was charged with bigamy. The complaint was filed before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) by the petitioner’s sisters, not by any of his spouses as the offended parties. Petitioner argues the crime has prescribed, as his sisters knew of his third marriage since 1999. The penalty for bigamy is prision mayor, an afflictive penalty, prescribing in 15 years from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.

ISSUE

Whether the crime of bigamy has prescribed, considering the commencement of the prescriptive period from discovery by the authorities, particularly in light of Republic Act No. 11909 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations which establish a Civil Registry Database with the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion agrees with the ponencia that prescription does not bar the action, but provides a distinct rationale. It holds that while discovery by the offended party (the spouse) is often difficult in bigamy, discovery by the authorities also commences the prescription period. From the facts, the authorities discovered the crime in 2021 when the complaint was filed.
However, the opinion argues that, considering the passage of Republic Act No. 11909 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, discovery by the authorities should now be reckoned from the registration of the bigamous marriage in the Civil Registry Database of the PSA. This represents a departure from the 1994 case of Sermonia v. Court of Appeals, which ruled that the principle of constructive notice (where registration constitutes notice to the world) does not apply to bigamy, as verifying marriages across disparate local registries was then a “too formidable a task.”
The opinion finds that the legal and technological landscape has drastically changed since Sermonia. RA 11909 mandates the PSA to develop a centralized, digitized Civil Registry Database with a virtual viewing facility, making verification of marital status across the country feasible. Therefore, the rationale in Sermonia for rejecting constructive notice is no longer applicable. The registration of a marriage in the PSA database should now constitute constructive discovery by the authorities for purposes of computing the prescriptive period for bigamy.